| U.S. Bank N.A. v Sachdev |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 04118 [128 AD3d 807] |
| May 13, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| U.S. Bank National Association,Respondent, v Harbinder Singh Sachdev et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendants. |
Rubin & Licatesi, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Richard H. Rubin and Amy J. Zamirof counsel), for appellants.
Sheldon May & Associates, P.C. (Stim & Warmuth, P.C., Farmingville,N.Y. [Glenn P. Warmuth], of counsel), for respondent.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Harbinder Singh Sachdev,Jagdish Kaur Sachdev, Baljit Sachdev, Harbinder Singh Sachdev and Kawaljeet Ahuja,as coguardians of Jagdish Kaur Singh Sachdev, appeal, as limited by their brief, from somuch of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered February27, 2013, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were to confirm areferee's report dated December 1, 2009, and for leave to enter a judgment of foreclosureand sale, and denied those branches of their cross motion which were, in effect, to vacatetheir default in appearing and answering the complaint, to compel the plaintiff to accepttheir late answer pursuant to CPLR 3012 (d), and to dismiss the complaint for lack ofstanding.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In support of that branch of their cross motion which was to vacate their default inappearing and answering the complaint and to compel the plaintiff to accept a lateanswer, the appellants were required to provide a reasonable excuse for their default anddemonstrate the existence of a potentially meritorious defense to the action (seeCPLR 3012 [d]; 5015 [a] [1]; Chase Home Fin., LLC v Minott, 115 AD3d 634, 634[2014]; Karalis v NewDimensions HR, Inc., 105 AD3d 707, 708 [2013]; Community Preserv. Corp. vBridgewater Condominiums, LLC, 89 AD3d 784, 785 [2011]; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vCervini, 84 AD3d 789, 789 [2011]). The determination of what constitutes areasonable excuse lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see Maspeth Fed. Sav. & LoanAssn. v McGown, 77 AD3d 889, 890 [2010]; Star Indus., Inc. v InnovativeBeverages, Inc., 55 AD3d 903, 904 [2008]; Antoine v Bee, 26 AD3d 306, 306 [2006]).
As the Supreme Court correctly determined, the appellants failed to demonstrate areasonable excuse for their default. Accordingly, it is not necessary to consider whetherthey demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious defense (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. vLafazan, 115 AD3d 647, 648 [2014]; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Palma, 114 AD3d 645,645-646 [2014]; [*2]Maspeth Fed. Sav. & LoanAssn. v McGown, 77 AD3d at 890).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff'smotion which were to confirm a referee's report dated December 1, 2009, and for leave toenter a judgment of foreclosure and sale, and properly denied those branches of theappellants' cross motion which were, in effect, to vacate their default in appearing andanswering the complaint, to compel the plaintiff to accept their late answer pursuant toCPLR 3012 (d), and to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing. Balkin, J.P.,Chambers, Miller and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.